BALISE IFRAME PDF
For iframe elements in XML documents, the srcdoc attribute, if present, must have a value that matches the production labeled document in the. Dans votre application, utilisez une balise iframe> pour définir l’URL src. All data-param-* attributes will be added as query parameter to the YouTube iframe src. This may be used to pass custom values through to YouTube plugins, .
|Published (Last):||26 December 2016|
|PDF File Size:||10.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This specification defines a big part of the Web platform, in lots of detail. Its place in the Web platform specification stack relative to other specifications can be best summed up as follows:. Although we have asked them to stop doing so, the W3C also republishes some parts of this specification as separate documents.
Originally, HTML was primarily designed as a language for semantically describing scientific documents. Its general design, however, has enabled it to be adapted, over the subsequent years, to describe a number of other types of documents and even applications. This specification is intended for authors of documents and scripts that use the features defined in this specification, implementers of tools that operate on pages that use the features defined in this specification, and individuals wishing to establish the correctness of documents or implementations with respect to the requirements of this specification.
This document is probably not suited to readers who do not already have at least a passing familiarity with Web technologies, as in places it sacrifices clarity for precision, and brevity for completeness. More approachable tutorials and authoring guides can provide a gentler introduction to the topic. In particular, familiarity with the basics of DOM is necessary for a complete understanding of some of the more technical parts of this specification.
This specification is limited to providing a semantic-level markup language and associated semantic-level scripting APIs for authoring accessible pages on the Web ranging from static documents to dynamic applications. The scope of this specification does not include providing mechanisms for media-specific customization of presentation although default rendering rules for Web browsers are included at the end of this specification, and several mechanisms for hooking into CSS are provided as part of the language.
The scope of this specification is not to describe an entire operating system. In particular, hardware configuration software, image manipulation tools, and applications that users would be expected to use with high-end workstations on a daily basis are out of scope. In terms of applications, this specification is targeted specifically at applications that would be expected to be used by users on an occasional basis, or regularly but from disparate locations, with low CPU requirements.
Examples of such applications include online purchasing systems, searching systems, games especially multiplayer online gamespublic telephone books or address books, communications software e-mail clients, instant messaging clients, discussion softwaredocument editing software, etc.
HTML4 quickly followed later that same year. These efforts then petered out, with some DOM Level 3 specifications published in baliss the working group being closed before all the Level 3 drafts were completed.
Inthe publication of XForms, a technology which was positioned as the next generation iframd Web forms, sparked a renewed interest in evolving HTML itself, rather than finding replacements for it. This interest was borne from the realization that XML’s deployment as a Web technology was limited to baliss new technologies like RSS and later Atomrather than as a replacement for existing deployed technologies like HTML. A proof of concept to show that it was possible to extend HTML4’s forms to provide many of the features that XForms 1.
At this early stage, while the draft was already publicly available, and input was already being solicited from all sources, the specification was only under Opera Software’s copyright.
Paramètres du lecteur
The idea that HTML’s evolution should be reopened was tested at a W3C workshop inwhere some of the balisw that underlie the HTML5 work described belowas well as the aforementioned early draft proposal covering just forms-related features, were presented to the W3C jointly by Mozilla and Opera. The proposal was rejected on the grounds that the proposal conflicted with the previously chosen direction for the Web’s evolution; the W3C staff and membership voted to continue developing XML-based replacements instead.
The copyright was subsequently amended to be jointly owned by all three vendors, and to allow reuse of the specification. The WHATWG was based on several core principles, in particular that technologies need to be backwards compatible, that specifications and implementations need to match even if this means changing the specification rather than the implementations, and that specifications need to be detailed enough that implementations can achieve complete interoperability without reverse-engineering each ifrme.
The latter requirement in particular required that the scope of the HTML5 specification include what had previously been specified in three separate documents: It also meant including significantly more detail than had previously been considered the norm.
For a number of years, both groups then worked together. Inhowever, the groups came to the conclusion that they had different goals: It must be admitted that many aspects of HTML appear at first glance to be nonsensical and inconsistent.
HTML, its supporting DOM APIs, as well as many of its supporting technologies, have been developed over a period of several decades by a wide array of people with different priorities who, in many cases, did not know of each other’s existence. Features have thus arisen from many sources, and have not always been designed in especially consistent ways. Irrame, because of the unique balide of the Web, implementation bugs have often become de-facto, and now de-jure, standards, as content is often unintentionally written in ways that rely on them before they can be fixed.
Despite all this, efforts have been made to adhere to certain design goals. These are described in the next few subsections. Even with workersthe intent is that the behavior of implementations can be thought of as completely serializing the execution of all scripts in all browsing contexts.
HTML Embedded content
This specification interacts with and relies on a wide variety of other specifications. In certain circumstances, unfortunately, conflicting needs have led to this specification violating the requirements of these other specifications.
Whenever this has occurred, the transgressions have each been noted as a ” willful violation “, and the reason for the violation has been noted. HTML has a wide array of extensibility mechanisms that can be used for adding semantics in a safe manner:. Authors can use the class attribute to ifeame elements, effectively creating their own elements, while using the most applicable existing “real” HTML element, so that browsers and other tools ifram don’t know of the extension can still support it somewhat well.
This is the tack used by microformats, for example.
Paramètres du lecteur | YouTube API iFrame | Google Developers
These are guaranteed to never be touched by browsers, and allow scripts to include data on HTML elements that scripts can then look for and process. This is also used by microformats. Authors can create plugins and invoke them using the embed element. This is how Flash works. This is widely used by script libraries, for instance. This specification defines an abstract language for describing documents and applications, and some APIs for interacting with in-memory representations of resources that use this language.
There are various concrete syntaxes that can be used to transmit resources that use this abstract language, two of which are defined in this specification. The first such concrete syntax is the HTML syntax. This is the format suggested for most authors. It is compatible with most legacy Web browsers. The second concrete syntax is XML.
There are also some appendices, listing obsolete features and IANA considerationsand several indices. This specification should be read like all other specifications. First, it should be read cover-to-cover, multiple times. Then, it should be read backwards at least once.
Then it should be read by picking random sections from the contents list and following all the cross-references. As described in the conformance requirements section below, this specification describes conformance criteria for a variety of conformance classes.
In particular, there are conformance requirements that apply to producersfor example authors and the documents they create, and there are conformance requirements that apply to consumersfor example Web browsers.
They can be distinguished by what they are requiring: For example, “the foo attribute’s value must be a valid integer ” is a requirement on producers, as it lays out the allowed values; in contrast, the requirement “the foo attribute’s value must be parsed using the rules for parsing integers ” is a requirement on consumers, as it describes how to process the content.
Continuing the above example, a requirement stating that a particular attribute’s value is constrained to being a valid integer emphatically does not imply anything about the requirements on consumers. It might be that the consumers are in fact required to treat the attribute as an opaque string, completely unaffected by whether the value conforms to the requirements or not.
It might be as in the previous example that the consumers are required to parse the value using specific rules that define how invalid non-numeric in this case values are to be processed. The defining instance of a term is marked up like this.
Uses of that term are marked up like this or like this.
The defining instance of an element, attribute, or API is marked up like this. References to that element, attribute, or API are marked up like this. In some cases, requirements are given in the form of lists with conditions and corresponding requirements. In such cases, the requirements that apply to a condition are always the first set of requirements that follow the condition, even in the case of there being multiple sets of conditions for those requirements.
Such cases are presented as follows:. In general, due to the Internet’s architecture, a user can be distinguished from another by the user’s IP address. IP addresses do not perfectly match to a user; as a user moves from device to device, or from network to network, their IP address will change; similarly, NAT routing, proxy servers, and shared computers enable packets that appear to all come from a single IP address to actually map to multiple users.
Technologies such as onion routing can be used to further anonymize requests so that requests from a single user at one node on the Internet appear to come from many disparate parts of the network. However, the IP address used for a user’s requests is not the only mechanism by which a user’s requests could be related to each other.
Cookies, for example, are designed specifically to enable this, and are the basis of most of the Web’s session features that enable you to log into a site with which you have an account. There are other mechanisms that are more subtle. Certain characteristics of a user’s system can be used to distinguish groups of users from each other; by collecting enough such information, an individual user’s browser’s “digital fingerprint” can be computed, which can be as good as, if not better than, an IP address in ascertaining which requests are from the same user.
Grouping requests in this manner, especially across multiple sites, can be used for both benign and even arguably positive purposes, as well as for malevolent purposes. An example of a reasonably benign purpose would be determining whether a particular person seems to prefer sites with dog illustrations as opposed to sites with cat illustrations based on how often they visit the sites in question and then automatically using the preferred illustrations on subsequent visits to participating sites.
Malevolent purposes, however, could include governments combining information such as the person’s home address determined from the addresses they use when getting driving directions on one site with their apparent political affiliations determined by examining the forum sites that they participate in to determine whether the person should be prevented from voting in an election.
Since the malevolent purposes can be remarkably evil, user agent implementers are encouraged to consider how to provide their users with tools to minimize leaking information that could be used to fingerprint a user. Unfortunately, as the first paragraph in this section implies, sometimes there is great benefit to be derived from exposing the very information that can also be used for fingerprinting purposes, so it’s not as easy as simply blocking all possible leaks.
For instance, the ability to log into a site to post under a specific identity requires that the user’s requests be identifiable as all being from the same user, more or less by definition. More subtly, though, information such as how wide text is, which is necessary for many effects that involve drawing text onto a canvas e. In this case, by potentially exposing, via a brute force search, which fonts a user has installed, information which can vary considerably from user to user.
Features in this specification which can be used to fingerprint the user are marked as this paragraph is. Other features in the platform can be used for the same purpose, though, including, though not limited to:.
The postMessage API provides a mechanism by which two sites can communicate directly. At first glance, this might appear to open a new way by which the problems described above can occur.
However, in practice, multiple mechanisms exist by which two sites can communicate that predate this API: Fundamentally, users that do not trust a site to treat their information with respect have to avoid visiting that site at all. HTML documents consist of a tree of elements and text. Certain start tags and end tags can in certain cases be omitted and are implied by other tags. Tags have to be nested such that elements are all completely within each other, without overlapping:.
This specification defines a set of elements that can be used in HTML, along with rules about the ways in which the elements can be nested.